Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[leibowde84]

The nature is the actor.

What? That makes no sense. You are saying that "the nature" creates a fetus? Can you please just take a second to look at how these terms are defined?

Create = TO BRING something into existence.

Develop = to grow or mature

Please help me understand where you are coming from using the correct definitions of these terms.

 

[FearGod]

Develop means to "grow or mature" in this context. Does a flower need human interaction to "grow or mature"? Sure, it needs sustenance, but it doesn't need intentional intervention. You are still using an erroneous definition of the term "develop". In the English language, the term develop has several meanings. When you are talking about "developing" something, it certainly requires intervention. That definition is practically identical to the term "create". Now, when speaking to the development of a fetus or a plant, the definition of the term changes drastically. When using it in this way, the word "develop" means to "grow or mature" just as a fetus "matures" in the womb. The fetus is already there, and had already developed from a zygote, so there is nothing new being "created". The fetus is merely developing INTO a baby.

My friend, in the ignore list.
Good luck

 

[leibowde84]

The nature is the actor.

Creation requires that something is being brought into existence that did not exist before. How is a Zygote developing into a fetus and eventually a baby bringing anything new into existence. The zygote is the same entity as the baby, it has merely developed.

 

[JayJayDee]

Osteology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Myology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anatomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Written in Bone - Forensic Facial Reconstruction

Is there some art involved? Yes.
Does it start AFTER the application of a lot of science? Yes.

Thank you for the links.....though I am not sure what you thought I would learn from them that I don't already know.

This snippet was interesting from one of the links......it demonstrates again something in the language that says things that are just skipped over.....

"Where did cartilaginous fish come from, and when?

According to fossil evidence (primarily based on shark teeth, which get preserved much more readily than any other part of a shark), the earliest sharksevolved about 400 million years ago. 'Modern' sharks arrived starting around 35 million years ago, and megalodon, white sharks and hammerheads came about 23 million years ago. Read More About Shark Evolution"

What Is a Cartilaginous Fish

Can you tell me how something that takes millions of years to "evolve"....."arrives"?

Isn't it closer to the truth that many things "arrive" in the fossil record?

Facts About Whale Sharks (The Largest Shark Species)

What Is a Cartilaginous Fish

OK, so because there is cartilage rather than bone in these "kinds" of fish, there is nothing much more than teeth left to make assumptions about their past? Interesting.......

Not sure what this is proving.....many creatures have a pelvis......

Here is something you may find interesting......

"Conventional thinking has long held that pelvic bones in whales and dolphins, evolutionary throwbacks to ancestors that once walked on land, are vestigial and will disappear millions of years from now. But researchers from University of Southern California and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM) have upended that assumption.

The scientists argue in a paper just published in the journal Evolution that cetacean (whale and dolphin) pelvic bones certainly do have a purpose and that they're specifically targeted, by selection, for mating."

Whale Pelvic Bones Actually Do Have a Purpose (Hint: Sex) : Discovery News

SEE ALSO

Rhipidistia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, what does this prove? What I see is something beautifully designed for the life they lived.

I believe that the Creator is creative. You believe that mindless random evolutionary changes "designed" these things.

Science can use its imagination as to how these things came to be...and so can we.

You give credit to nature....I give credit to the one who created nature.

 

[leibowde84]

My friend, in the ignore list.
Good luck

I'll take that as a win. Thanks buddy.

Next time I would encourage you to be a decent person and accept when you are wrong about something ... or at least be a man and not cower away, scared to express your ideas intelligibly.

 

[leibowde84]

My friend, in the ignore list.
Good luck

Man, your signature might be the most ironic thing I've ever read. You are refusing to even admit that you are using incorrect definitions of commonly used words.

 

[philbo]

Can you tell me how something that takes millions of years to "evolve"....."arrives"?

Isn't it closer to the truth that many things "arrive" in the fossil record?

Everything in the fossil record arrives there at some point - that's taken as the first point, or "arrival" as a historic organism: doesn't necessarily mean that organism hasn't been around for hundreds or even thousands of years previously, just that the odds on being fossilized are pretty small so there's an assumption made about population sizes: if there's a handful of individuals of a new species on the block, you're very unlikely to see any fossils a few million centuries later; if it proves moderately successful, you get a lot of 'em, some of which will show up as fossils.

Even with gradual change, the effect on the fossil record is likely to look more like punctuated equilibrium as it's only when a population of a species grows significantly that you're likely to find fossils around. Gradual change does not mean every organism is changing gradually.

 

[JayJayDee]

That might work, but it makes the dangerous assumption that they can read.

LOL...which is entirely my argument.....it appears that those who accept evolution blindly ignore the language that identifies evolutionary science as speculation and assumption....educated guessing is not established fact.

The truth is, there is no way to state something as a categorical fact when one has made an assumption about what "might have" or "could have" taken place.

Just be honest about your theory......it has no more solid foundation in fact than what a bunch of smart people "think" "might have" happened. No one was there to see or record what happened and the "evidence" they have unearthed is open to very biased interpretation. Science's credibility is at stake.

I can accept what they can "prove" as far as it goes....but it's what goes beyond what they can prove that drifts into the realms of imagination....over-active imagination.

You can believe them if you wish....I don't.

 

[leibowde84]

LOL...which is entirely my argument.....it appears that those who accept evolution blindly ignore the language that identifies evolutionary science as speculation and assumption....educated guessing is not established fact.

The truth is, there is no way to state something as a categorical fact when one has made an assumption about what "might have" or "could have" taken place.

Just be honest about your theory......it has no more solid foundation in fact than what a bunch of smart people "think" "might have" happened. No one was there to see or record what happened and the "evidence" they have unearthed is open to very biased interpretation. Science's credibility is at stake.

I can accept what they can "prove" as far as it goes....but it's what goes beyond what they can prove that drifts into the realms of imagination....over-active imagination.

You can believe them if you wish....I don't.

Evolution is merely the best explanation currently available based on empirical evidence. It is not a "scientific law", but it is getting closer by the day.

 

[JayJayDee]

Yes, and not only is "intelligent design" not a scientific theory, it's not even a scientific hypothesis. In order to have the latter, there must be at least some evidence it could possibly be true, but in this case there's simply not.

Metis, there is no man-made test for the Creator. No method invented by mere humans could possibly test for his existence, let alone scientifically prove that he doesn't exist.

The point is that there's no scientific evidence for a theistic causation. Therefore, if one believes in "intelligent design", it's not a scientific statement but is a reflection of one's theological and/or personal belief.

All that means is that scientists (educated by other scientists) have no known test......it doesn't mean that the Creator can't exist....only that puny humans have no evidence that are set by their own limits, for his existence. Many also have an agenda....almost a strongly motivated need, to prove that he doesn't exist.

 

[philbo]

Evolution is merely the best explanation currently available based on empirical evidence.

QFT

Exactly this:if anyone comes up with a better explanation for the fossil record, for anatomical features (including vestigial ones), for genetics.. then we can hold our hands up and say "oops, we were wrong, that is *so* much more likely". Until that better explanation comes along, evolution is the one to go with.

 

[Nietzsche]

LOL...which is entirely my argument.....it appears that those who accept evolution blindly ignore the language that identifies evolutionary science as speculation and assumption....educated guessing is not established fact.

The truth is, there is no way to state something as a categorical fact when one has made an assumption about what "might have" or "could have" taken place.

Just be honest about your theory......it has no more solid foundation in fact than what a bunch of smart people "think" "might have" happened. No one was there to see or record what happened and the "evidence" they have unearthed is open to very biased interpretation. Science's credibility is at stake.

I can accept what they can "prove" as far as it goes....but it's what goes beyond what they can prove that drifts into the realms of imagination....over-active imagination.

You can believe them if you wish....I don't.

Here's the thing; a skeleton will only fit together one way. If I were to bring the skeleton of a house-cat to someone who's never seen one, but is supremely familiar with Lions, they will put the cat together properly. Why? Because if you understand anything about animal morphology, this is no longer a guessing game.

 

[leibowde84]

QFT

Exactly this:if anyone comes up with a better explanation for the fossil record, for anatomical features (including vestigial ones), for genetics.. then we can hold our hands up and say "oops, we were wrong, that is *so* much more likely". Until that better explanation comes along, evolution is the one to go with.

I agree.

 

[JayJayDee]

Can I get the opinion of the evolution supporters here on these statements please......
Do you have reason to disagree with any of this?

"The fossil record is incomplete. This incompleteness has many contributing factors. Geological processes may cause confusion or error, as sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved. Beyond geology, there remains taphonomy -- the study of how organisms come to be preserved as fossils. Here, there are further issues to be addressed. Hard parts of organisms fossilize preferentially. The conditions under which even those parts may become fossilized are fairly specialized. All this results in a heavily skewed distribution of even what parts of organisms become fossilized, and that affects which features of morphology are available for use in classification. The issue of geography enters into all this, as a consequence of the fact that living lineages occupy ecological niches, and those niches are bound to certain features of geography.

Paleospecies, then, have to be recognized as species from morphology alone, where the available morphological characters are drawn from a skewed distribution, the pattern of fossilization is skewed, and the geographic correlates of fossilization are limited in extent."

If this is true, what does it mean for the truthfulness of fossil evidence?

 

[Revoltingest]

Can I get the opinion of the evolution supporters here on these statements please......
Do you have reason to disagree with any of this?

"The fossil record is incomplete. This incompleteness has many contributing factors. Geological processes may cause confusion or error, as sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved. Beyond geology, there remains taphonomy -- the study of how organisms come to be preserved as fossils. Here, there are further issues to be addressed. Hard parts of organisms fossilize preferentially. The conditions under which even those parts may become fossilized are fairly specialized. All this results in a heavily skewed distribution of even what parts of organisms become fossilized, and that affects which features of morphology are available for use in classification. The issue of geography enters into all this, as a consequence of the fact that living lineages occupy ecological niches, and those niches are bound to certain features of geography.

Paleospecies, then, have to be recognized as species from morphology alone, where the available morphological characters are drawn from a skewed distribution, the pattern of fossilization is skewed, and the geographic correlates of fossilization are limited in extent."

If this is true, what does it mean for the truthfulness of fossil evidence?

It means the same thing it's always meant, ie, it's a very difficult puzzle to piece together.
"Truth" is really the wrong word to use regarding a posteriori science.

 

[philbo]

If this is true, what does it mean for the truthfulness of fossil evidence?

It means it's the best estimate we can get from the physical evidence that remains. It not being perfect does not mean it is guesswork, made up or a complete tissue of lies: it's the best analysis of what is actually found from all round the world.

What do you think it means?

 

[FearGod]

It means it's the best estimate we can get from the physical evidence that remains. It not being perfect does not mean it is guesswork, made up or a complete tissue of lies: it's the best analysis of what is actually found from all round the world.

What do you think it means?

Your mind is better than the fossils to realize the truth.

Do you think it is rational for human sapiens to spend more than 200000 years to learn how to write ?
Do you think writing is a hard invention that human have to spend that long period of time to start thinking about it ?
Human were still primitives, no sign of any civilization till only the last few thousands of years, how you explain that while the homo sapiens means the wise man.

 

[leibowde84]

Your mind is better than the fossils to realize the truth.

Do you think it is rational for human sapiens to spend more than 200000 years to learn how to write ?
Do you think writing is a hard invention that human have to spend that long period of time to start thinking about it ?
Human were still primitives, no sign of any civilization till only the last few thousands of years, how you explain that while the homo sapiens means the wise man.

Because writing and the development of civilization is incredibly difficult to "develop" (wink). If you think beneficial mutation is hard to believe, try having a community with no way of written communication agree on and learn an agreed upon alphabet and set of words/terms. We are lucky it didn't take longer.

 

[leibowde84]

Your mind is better than the fossils to realize the truth.

Do you think it is rational for human sapiens to spend more than 200000 years to learn how to write ?
Do you think writing is a hard invention that human have to spend that long period of time to start thinking about it ?
Human were still primitives, no sign of any civilization till only the last few thousands of years, how you explain that while the homo sapiens means the wise man.

Just out of curiosity, why on earth would you assume that the "development" (wink) of language would be such an easy road.

 

[philbo]

Your mind is better than the fossils to realize the truth.

Fossils don't realize anything - they've no cognitive ability whatsoever. But a mind can consider what the fossils mean when trying to determine what might be "truth"

Do you think it is rational for human sapiens to spend more than 200000 years to learn how to write ?
Do you think writing is a hard invention that human have to spend that long period of time to start thinking about it ?

If nobody had ever told you that there was such a thing as writing, you'd never seen a book, paper, or anything which might make you consider making permanent marks, do you think you'd have come up with writing? Almost everything we know & do is because others have done these things first. I wouldn't consider not writing "irrational" if nobody has ever written before; I also wouldn't consider it relevant.

Human were still primitives, no sign of any civilization till only the last few thousands of years, how you explain that while the homo sapiens means the wise man.

That's pure hubris - mankind gave himself the name "Homo sapiens" (in much the same way as man decided that he had been made in a god's image)

Again, I can't see any relevance to the post of mine that you quoted.